Washington - Organizers for the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference will not allow American Atheists to have an exhibition booth at the conservative conference, the group's spokeswoman said Tuesday.

The decision comes just hours after American Atheists, the outspoken organization that advocates for atheists nationwide, announced that it would have a booth at the event. David Silverman, president of American Atheists, tells CNN that a groundswell of opposition from high-ranking members of CPAC compelled the group to pull the invite.

Meghan Snyder, a spokeswoman for CPAC, said in a statement to CNN that “American Atheists misrepresented itself about their willingness to engage in positive dialogue and work together to promote limited government.”

"I'm surprised and I'm saddened," Silverman said in response to the announcement. "I think this is a very disappointing turn of events. I was really looking forward to going."

Representatives of CPAC called Silverman Tuesday afternoon and said they would be returning the group's money, Silverman said.

"It is very obvious to me they were looking for a reason to say no," Silverman added. "Christianity is bad for conservatism and they did not want that message out there."

In an interview with CNN on Monday night, Silverman said his group planned to use the booth to bring conservative atheists “out of the closest” and said he was not worried about making the Christian right angry because “the Christian right should be threatened by us.”

Snyder said CPAC spoke to Silverman about his divisive and inappropriate language.

“He pledged that he will attack the very idea that Christianity is an important element of conservatism. People of any faith tradition should not be attacked for their beliefs, especially at our conference. He has left us with no choice but to return his money,” she said.

When Snyder confirmed to CNN on Monday that American Atheists would be at CPAC, she said in a statement that they were allowed to display at the confab because “conservatives have always stood for freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”

“The folks we have been working with stand for many of the same liberty-oriented policies and principles we stand for,” Snyder said.

The Conservative Political Action Committee, the largest and oldest gathering of conservatives, is run by the American Conservative Union and will be held at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in Maryland's National Harbor from March 6 to 8. Last year, the event brought together thousands of activists to listen to dozens of Republican leaders speak about everything from economics and foreign policy to social issues. The event has long been considered a required stop for Republican presidential hopefuls.

The decision to include American Atheists outraged some conservatives, with many taking to Twitter to voice their disapproval.

According to Silverman, Dan Schneider, the executive director of the American Conservative Union, called him to talk about the group's inclusion in the event and the response from conservatives members.

In a statement to CNN on Monday night, Tony Perkins, president of the Christian conservative think-tank Family Research Council, expressed outrage at the decision, stating that the American Atheists did "not seek to add their voice to the chorus of freedom."

"CPAC's mission is to be an umbrella for conservative organizations that advance liberty, traditional values and our national defense," said Perkins, who spoke at CPAC in 2012. "Does the American Conservative Union really think the liberties and values they seek to preserve can be maintained when they partner with individuals and organizations that are undermining the understanding that our liberties come from God? Thomas Jefferson warned against such nonsense."

"If this is where the ACU is headed, they will have to pack up and put away the 'C' in CPAC!" the social conservative leader added.

American Atheist is well known for its controversial billboards and media campaigns and is considered the in-your-face contingent in the world of atheist activists. The group’s members pride themselves as being the “Marines" of the atheist movement.

The atheist organization paid $3,000 for booth 439 in the event’s exhibition hall. That money will now be returned. Its booth was set to be right next to the Republican National Committee’s booth.

In explaining why the group decided to join CPAC on Monday, Silverman cited a 2012 Pew Research study that found 20% of self-identified conservatives consider themselves religiously unaffiliated. While that does not mean they are atheists, Silverman believes learning more about atheism will make it more likely conservatives will choose to identify with those who believe there is no God.

“Just as there are many closeted atheists in the church pews, I am extremely confident that there are many closeted atheists in the ranks of conservatives," Silverman said at the time. This “is really a serious outreach effort, and I am very pleased to be embarking on it.”

The group has long targeted Republican lawmakers, although Silverman considers the organization nonpartisan.

In 2013, American Atheists launched a billboard campaign against three Republican politicians: former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. All three Republicans have spoken at CPAC in the past.

On one billboard, Santorum is pictured to the left of a quote attributed to him. “Our civil laws have to comport with a higher law. God’s law,” the quote reads. Underneath the graphic is a tagline: "GO GODLESS INSTEAD."

The group has also prided itself on trying to reach into religious communities and help "closeted atheists" come out, as it did in a 2012 billboard campaign aimed at Jews and Muslims.

soundoff(829 Responses)

thatinthebible

Ever notice how it seems as if every time the subject of religion, God, faith, or any subject even remotely related to them comes up, the conversation always appears to be so "black and white?" It's almost always going to be the so-called Believers vs. the so-called Atheists. Never any middle ground. Very interesting...

I blog at http://isthatinthebible.com

I really like the idea of taking any random current local, national, or international news event and just seeing what the Bible has to say about that particular subject; if anything.

Why do some Christians say one thing about the age of the earth and others are WAYY different in their view?

It's pretty obvious they are CONFUSED and conflicted on the issue.

And then, some Christian scientists LIE to say what young-earth creations want to hear while selling their real expertise in the field from which they obtained their credentials.

Case in point – Dr Snelling who was referenced a few times by Ham in the recent Ham-Nye debate. But what story is this Dr Snelling telling? Another geologist, Dr Alex Ritchie has some interesting insight.
==========

Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

Dr Alex Ritchie, The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15

Dr Alex Ritchie received his BSc. (Hons) in Geology and a Ph.D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from 1968 to 1995 where he is currently a Research Fellow.

For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.

These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.

Dr Alex Ritchie, palaeontologist at the Australian Museum, takes up the story.

There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications – a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

(b) Dr A A Snelling 2 – consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.
Snelling 1

For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia.

Snelling 1 writes articles for creationist journals and lectures throughout the country in schools, public meetings and churches. Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'.

Why should Snelling 1's activities concern the scientific and educational communities? To appreciate this, one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.

CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.

"(A) PRIORITIES

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

(B) BASICS

3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.

(D) GENERAL

The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

(i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

(ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six
(6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

(iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

(iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."

These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.

Everything in his creationist writings and activities indicates that Snelling 1 subscribes fully to CSF's Statement of Faith. Where this clashes with scientific evidence, the latter is always secondary to the former and his message, although often cloaked in scientific jargon, is simple and unequivocal; indeed one of his favourite lecture topics is "Why, as a Geologist, I Believe in Noah's Flood".

From the Gospel according to Snelling 1, the Earth is geologically young, created ex nihilo ("from nothing") by a supernatural being, during a short, well defined construction period of only six days. This miraculous creation event, usually dated some 6000 years ago (around 4004 BC), is not the end of the story. The Earth we live on today is not the same as the original created model, which was almost totally destroyed and remodelled some 1,600 years later (around 2345 BC) by an irate Creator who conjured up an unique, world-wide Flood to do the job.

This Flood, lasting just over one year, tore down all previous land surfaces, rearranged the continents and thrust up all existing mountain chains. It also destroyed all pre-existing life forms, plant and animal – except for a chosen few saved on Noah's Ark. Thus all of the remarkably complex geology of the present day Earth's crust formed during the one year of Noah's Flood and all the innumerable fossil remains of former animals and plants were all buried and preserved by the same Flood.

Snelling 1 (1983a) presented his views on Flood chronology in an article, Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. After reviewing mainstream views on geology and evolution, he remarked:

"On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood....Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisation."

"However the flood was global, erosional and its purpose was destruction. Therefore the first major fossilisation commenced at this time, and the majority of the fossils are regarded as having been formed rapidly during this event. Creationists therefore regard sedimentary strata as needing to be classified into those formed during the time of creation week, pre-flood, flood (early, middle and late), post-flood and recent" (p. 42)

"It should be obvious that if the Earth is only 6000 years old, then all the geological designations are meaningless within that framework, and it is deceptive to continue to use them. If, as many creationist geologists believe, the majority of the geological column represents flood sediments and post-flood geophysical activity, then the mammoth, dinosaur and all humans existed simultaneously .... Some limited attempts have been made by creationist geologists to reclassify the entire geological column within this framework, but the task is immense." (Dillow 1981, "The Waters Above". Moody Press, 405-6)

Snelling 1 criticised Dillow and other creationists for restricting Flood strata to Phanerozoic rocks (Cambrian and younger) and claimed that most Precambrian rocks are also Flood deposits:

"It is my contention that those who do this have failed to study carefully the evidence for the flood deposition of many Precambrian strata and have therefore unwittingly fallen into the trap of lumping together the Precambrian strata to the creation week. The usual reason for doing this is that the evolutionists regard Precambrian as so different, so devoid of life in comparison with other rocks, that creationists have simply borrowed their description." (1983, 42).

Snelling 1 thus pushes the earliest limits of Flood strata far back into the Early Precambrian (early Archaean) times , before even the first appearance of fossils resembling blue-green algae:

"What I am contending here is that fossils, whether they be microscopic or macroscopic, plant or animal and the fossil counterpart of organic matter, along with its metamorphosed equivalent graphite, are the primary evidence which should distinguish flood rocks from pre-flood rocks, regardless of the evolutionary 'age'." (1983, 45).

Lest there remain any doubt, Snelling 1 (1983, 42) stated:

"For creationists to be consistent the implications are clear; Precambrian sediments containing fossils and organic remains were laid down during Noah's flood. Creationist geologists need to completely abandon the evolutionist's geological column and associated terminology. It is necessary to start again, using the presence of fossils or organic matter as a classification criterion in the task of rebuilding our understanding of geological history within the Biblical framework."

It is difficult to believe that the writer of the foregoing article has a BSc (Hons) and PhD in geology! However an examination of other articles by the same author in Ex Nihilo reveals that, to Snelling 1, everything geological (Ayers Rock, Mt Isa ore deposits, Bass Strait oil and gas, Queensland coal deposits, Great Barrier Reef, etc.,) can be explained as the result of Noah's year-long Flood.

If we now turn to the scientific articles published by the other Dr A A Snelling, consulting geologist (also from PO Box 302, Sunnybank QLD, 4109), we find a remarkable contrast, both in approach and content. None of them mention the Creation or Creation Week, Flood geology or the need to revamp the classic geological timescale.

The latest paper by Snelling 2 (1990, 807 -812) is a detailed technical account of the "Koongarra Uranium Deposits" in the Northern Territory. It appears in an authoritative two volume work on "Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea" (ed. F E Hughes), published by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. The references list eight earlier papers by Snelling 2 in refereed journals (or symposium volumes) on aspects of uranium mineralisation; three as sole author and five as junior co-author.

In discussing the regional geology (p. 807) and age (p. 811) of the Koongarra uranium deposits, Snelling 2 describes their geological history in fairly technical terms, however, to avoid the charge we lay against the creationists, of taking quotations out of context, I will quote Snelling 2 verbatim from the paper (p. 807):

"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:

"The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures."

There is no question here of "abandoning the geological column and its associated terminology", and the term Myr refers unequivocally to millions of years.

One further quotation (p.807), "A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism.", is self explanatory.

There are several further references to ages of millions and thousands of millions of years, and to commonly accepted geological terminology, throughout the paper but, to spare the lay reader, I will only summarise them here:

1. During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.

2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.

3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.

Nowhere in this, or in any other article by Snelling 2 is there any reference to the creation week, to Noah's Flood or to a young age for the Earth. Nor is there any disclaimer, or the slightest hint, that this Dr Snelling has any reservations about using the standard geological column or time scale, accepted world-wide. The references above to hundreds and thousands of million of years are not interpolated by me. They appear in Dr Snelling 2's paper.

The problem is obvious – the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other's papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.

One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?

Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.

I think that both Dr Snelling and the CSF owe us all an explanation. WILL THE REAL DR ANDREW SNELLING PLEASE STAND UP?

POSTSCRIPT

Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart – Noah's Flood – The Geological Case For and Against.

I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.

For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.

In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.

March 5, 2014 at 10:14 pm |

Salero21

So bye, bye atheists!! History IS NOT on your side.

Sure we all can see your childish tantrums and hear your complaining and whining, but we are NOT listening.
We know from History, from personal experience, from the Bible and just plain common sense, about your extreme hypocrisy, of your compulsive, pathological lying and your evil deeds all through History. So ALL men of reason and ALL reasonable men are NOT being fooled by your kind. You're fooling only your foolish evil self.

igaftr is a Secret Agent of the GRAMMAR GESTAPO OF THE INTERNET, the Legal Enforcement Branch of atheism. If they catch me in something, with their toothpicks batons they will pick me again and again, over and over till I die!! ;-):-D HAHAHA

"GRAMMAR GESTAPO OF THE INTERNET"
Even more irony...the gestapo was part of Hitlers third reich...christians who went after jews and atheists among others

March 5, 2014 at 4:19 pm |

Salero21

Aha!! So an atheist who can't/will not see Creation as the Evidence for the Creator God. Now wants to arbitrarily designate who is and who is not a Christian. :-D:-D Really, really!!

And of course his choice of who was/is christian is the few and mostly apostates who were the minority not only of the Gestapo, but of the entire German population and the NAZIS. Ignoring of course better examples like that of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Christians, though the majority sometimes of the religious observers or believers, were never the majority of the populace as a whole. Not only in Germany now or then but in all other countries past or present. And I'm not including among Christians the idolaters of the RCC, who incidentally are the one atheists always end-up flocking to.

Worst yet igaftr the not so Secret agent of the GRAMMAR GESTAPO OF THE INTERNET the legal enforcement Branch of atheism. Which is Total stupidity always and forevermore. Chooses on his arbitrary and very particular way that the NAZI GESTAPO of Germany under Hitler were THE Christians and that's because he [igaftr] says so. Man oh man some people especially atheists have some gall. No wonder all over atheism which is Total stupidity, is being rejected by men of reason and reasonable men. Even in Hollywood of all places on Earth, atheists are not the Main attraction of the show anymore.

So atheists we hear your complaining, whining and see your childish tantrums, but we really, really are not listening to you.

As long as there have been gods, there have been atheists. As long as there is God, there will be atheists.

I'm surprised a scholar such as yourself wouldn't know that.

March 6, 2014 at 2:49 pm |

Salero21

HAHAHA :-D:-D:-D I heard that even in such a place as Hollywood and it's so called Oscar night; atheists were once again not the center of attention.

Well, not that Hollywood, the Oscars or movies are at all a good source of information or an example to anybody, but if even there, atheists are a bunch of nobodies that ought to say something to somebody.

Even in the world atheists are increasingly being viewed for what they are.
That's because the Total stupidity of atheism is Evident to ALL men of reason and reasonable men. So my dear frenemies atheists. History is NOT on your side. That's because even idolatrous religions is something that God allowed/granted to mankind. Only mankind, humans, can have believe or practice a religion. Even if it's a corrupt, idolatrous and perverted as the roman-catholic et al are.

That's one big thing that separates us humans, from all animals.
Animals do have customs, rituals and routines but because of their very Created by God nature, they can't and don't have religions. Only humans can have and practice religion, and believe in God. That's completely and very Human, it belongs to mankind ONLY. So atheists the clock is ticking against your Cult-like system of unbelief. Men of reason and reasonable men are not really listening to you. Sure they hear your pathetic and compulsive lying, but they ALL know of your extreme hypocrisy.

March 4, 2014 at 4:35 pm |

Salero21

We all know about it!!!;-)

March 4, 2014 at 4:39 pm |

In Santa We Trust

saltshaker, It's telling that you feel threatened enough to post this troll nonsense daily. Just inverting atheist criticism of religion generally doesn't make sense, but I suppose that is in keeping with the rest of your posts.

March 4, 2014 at 4:43 pm |

Salero21

I haven't post in a couple of days if I remember well. So you saying "daily" is one good piece of Evidence of your trolling compulsive, pathetic and pathological lying. Your extreme hypocrisy is well known all over the Blog. ;-) Now even if I post everyday; what is it to you? This is call the Belief Blog; if you don't like it leave. Because your complaining and childish whining is one big example of the Total stupidity of atheism.

That's why atheism is Total stupidity all over and forevermore. :-)

March 4, 2014 at 4:50 pm |

Doris

"Only humans can have and practice religion,"

Actually, we can observe pets playing make believe – perhaps easier to see in cats. Pretty much the same thing as creating an imaginary friend that will help you through life and whatever comes after...

March 4, 2014 at 4:45 pm |

Salero21

Your ignorance is pathetic almost tragic, but that's why I must keep saying that atheism is Total stupidity. That you can't tell the difference between the customs, rituals, routines of animals and that of Humans is one big piece of Evidence, that either you really descend from some ape like creature :-D:-D or that Atheism is indeed Total stupidity. ;-)

March 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm |

Doris

That you can't tell the similarities that are obvious between animals and humans is quite revealing. Talk about ignorance. But please, by all means, be all the troll you can be. I'm sure even the infrequent reader can see the lack of substance to your rants. Since you're so hung up on your God, why don't you try to prove his existence right here and now? Too shy for that task today Salero? Why don't you set a precedent and show some good evidence for your God for the benefit of the readers here....

March 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm |

Salero21

A foolish atheist can't see beyond her/his nose and still ask to see the Evidence previously rejected.

Creation itself is the EVIDENCE for the Creator who is God. Probably the 40% of fat in your body is getting into your brain. The similarities between animals and humans do not make-up for the Main difference, which carry too much weight. You are too obtuse and too much of a bimbo to see and understand that. That's why I keep saying that atheism is Total stupidity.

March 4, 2014 at 11:32 pm |

Doris

Asinine. But then I never have expected much from the first post I ever read from you Salero.

The human brain IS mostly fat. Your ignorance is on display for all to see.

March 5, 2014 at 11:39 am |

Salero21

Oops! I forgot that Doris may be a cat in front of a PC not a real person.

That should explain why she/he/it love animals more than humans.
That he/he/it can't see the Fact, that the differences between animals and humans are by far more and that, ought to weight heavier in reasoning is one big piece of Evidence for the Total stupidity of atheism.

On the other hand we have the pseudo-scientists Vadr89.
Who clearly have some reading and reading comprehension skills below the 6th grade. Trying really hard to refute what I said about the Fat OF THE BODY specially that around the waist hips and rear end.

Sure the brain have a high contents of fat as well as water. However is not the same fat of the body, is a highly specialized compound of fatty acids. That's why the "Fat of the body" is different and not the same as the fatty tissues of the brain. In the case of Doris and Valdr89 however the rate of body fat and water in the brain is higher as it probably is that around their waist, hips and fat rear end.

Conservatives are so unsettled with their splintered beliefs of a moody and violent god, that the word "atheist" scares them into their biblical interpretations still adding denominations to the already thousands that exist.

March 2, 2014 at 8:09 pm |

Doris

Why do some Christians from the U.S. travel to other countries and incite violence against people?

Why do some Christians officially categorizes the Pope as the Antichrist?

Why do some Christians help spread disease (because of the unrealistic stance on contraception)?

Why do some Christians let sick child die rather than seek medical care?

Why do some Christians treat women still as inferiors in their organization?

Why do some Christians still sacrifice people?

Why do some Christians believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri?

Why do some Christians believe that Americans are being killed at war because America is tolerant of homosexuals?

Why do some Christians believe the OT is superseded by the NT and some not?

=====

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." –Thomas Jefferson

March 1, 2014 at 9:05 pm |

Salero21

Your pathetic/compulsive lying and your extreme hypocrisy is very evident and one more piece of Evidence of what atheism is all about.

Oh the hatred that comes from you is almost sad. Why so much hate? Were you unloved as a child? Or are you simply so insecure in your faith that belittling and hate are the only ways for you to keep it real-fight against the enemy sort of thing?

March 4, 2014 at 4:50 pm |

Salero21

Oh there you go again!!! :-P Your extreme hypocrisy and pathological lying is Evident to all in the Blog. Therefore atheism remains what has always been and forevermore will be; Total stupidity. ;-)

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' " 12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
-Romans 14

March 1, 2014 at 8:54 pm |

jimmo42

The bible is the claim, not the evidence. You must first demonstrate the bible is a completely reliable source of information, which it isn't.

March 3, 2014 at 10:30 am |

Salero21

The Total stupidity of atheism has been well establish and understood by all men of reason and reasonable men. Therefore is Totally useless for atheists to even try to fool anyone else but themselves. So long atheists, bye bye, you are being left in the dust of History never to be remember. God's Kingdom will be Establish on a New Heaven and a New earth. Yours will be atomized, pulverized, throw away and burn up. :-D:-D

'##On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

We're not the ones barking up the wrong tree...you are the one professing your lies/delusions on here. You are the one refusing to show us why we are wrong. If you're not willing to be tested then you deserve every bit of ridicule you get.
Stop being a coward and contact JRF or simply admit you're nothing more than a coward who knows you'd be shown to be a liar!

It's widely known Conservatives and bible backs believe in the same things so it's not surprising they only allow what they believe in to participate in anything they do.....specially when it comes to their fictional gods.

February 28, 2014 at 6:53 pm |

Doris

Why is it that many Christians ignore science?

Why do some of them tell two different stories at the same time (even selling them) about science?
Why do they travel to other places and incite violence against other people?

Why do they promote the jailing of people or remain complacent about their fellow Christians who do the same?

Why does the Anglican Communion demote the one person who tried to quell the violence against people in Uganda?

Why are they not listening to people from the National Institutes of Health?

[ The search for a "gay gene" may be off-target, new research finds. Another process called epigenetics that switches genes on and off may explain why homosexuality runs in families.

Epigenetics are heritable changes caused by factors other than DNA. Instead of traits getting passed down through the genes, epigenetic change happens because of the way genes are regulated, or turned on and off.

These genetic regulators may be the reason homosexuality persists in nature despite the fact that gay people are less likely to reproduce, suggests the new study published in the [Dec, 2012] journal The Quarterly Review of Biology.

"These things have evolved because they're good for the parents, but they sometimes, not [with] high frequency, but sometimes carry over" into offspring, study researcher William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told LiveScience. In a male fetus, Rice and his colleagues write, an epigenetic change that benefited the mother may lead to "feminization" of sexual preference — homo- or bisexuality. The same may be true for epigenetic changes passed down by dad to a female fetus. (The terms feminization and masculinization of sexual preference refer to sexual orientation only — not to physical or personality traits of the offspring.)

The findings add to past research suggesting gay men haven't died out, because female relatives of gay men tend to have more children on average than other females. The study researchers specifically found that two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

Hormones, epigenetics and orientation

Rice and his colleagues focused on epi-marks, which are molecular changes that act like temporary "switches" to turn genes on and off. If a gene is a blueprint, the epi-mark is the construction foreman who makes sure the product gets built. An epi-mark also determines when, where and how much a gene is expressed, according to the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis.

These molecular switches are usually erased very early in the developmental process, but they can be passed down from generation to generation, too, Rice said.

Some epi-marks are particularly important during fetal development, when they promote normal physical development in the sexes despite natural variations in testosterone during pregnancy. Researchers know that fetal exposure to too much testosterone can masculinize the genitals, brain or behavior of a genetically female fetus. Likewise, too little testosterone can make a genetically male fetus more feminized.

But here's the catch: There's lots of overlap between the levels of testosterone male and female fetuses get exposed to. That means there must be another side to the story, Rice and his colleagues wrote.

That side appears to be epigenetics, Rice said.

"Early in development, we think these epi-marks are laid down so that girl fetuses will be relatively insensitive to testosterone and male fetuses will be relatively sensitive to testosterone," Rice said.

Biological behavior

Thus, if an epi-mark that kept a mother from getting exposed to high testosterone in development gets passed on to her son — the opposite sex — it could desensitize him to testosterone, contributing to his sexual preference for men. Similarly, if a male-specific epi-mark from dad gets passed to a daughter, it could "masculinize" her sexual preference, making her more interested in women.

These findings could explain why twin studies show that homosexuality runs in families, but no "gay gene" can be found, Rice said. In identical twins, there's about a 20 percent chance that if one twin is gay, the other will be too. If genetic change were responsible for homosexuality, you'd expect a much higher match, Rice said. Epigenetics, however, can explain the heritability without the need for a specific genetic change.

The hypothesis could be tested by examining epigenetic marks in parents of kids with gay versus straight offspring, Rice said. There are, of course, concerns that this knowledge could be used by parents who want to avoid gay offspring, Rice said, but that concern already exists around certain hormonal conditions in utero, which are known to contribute to an increased chance of offspring being lesbians.

"That cat's already out of the bag," Rice said. He added that an understanding of the biological underpinnings of homosexuality could help emphasize that same-sex behavior is not "unnatural."

"In fact, it's a major part of the natural world," Rice said. Fourteen percent of Western gulls raise chicks in female-female pairs, he pointed out. And 8 percent of male sheep show zero interest in fertile ewes, but get sexually excited by other rams. ]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Psychology

The American Psychological Association states "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people", and says most people's sexual orientation is determined at an early age. Research into how sexual orientation in males may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises concerns about genetic profiling and prenatal testing."

Professor Michael King states: "The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science.

February 28, 2014 at 10:39 am |

Doris

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science."

God has no need for anything...your god is the the least likely to exist. Does your god like cowards and liar's? If not, than it is safe to say your god doesn't like you!
Why continue to post when you know you are viewed as a liar, fraud and a coward?

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.